Plaintiff employees challenged the decision of the Superior Court of Riverside County (California) that granted summary judgment to defendants, a management corporation, partnerships, and individuals, in plaintiffs’ action alleging tortious and bad faith discharge. Plaintiffs petitioned for a writ of mandate contending that defendants did not establish that there were no triable issues of material fact with respect to plaintiffs’ claims. The parties consulted with several counsel which included labor attorney and business counsel.
Overview
Defendant management corporation, an agent for defendants, partnerships and individuals, entered into a one-year employment agreement with plaintiffs to manage apartment buildings and subsequently terminated plaintiffs for alleged unsatisfactory performance. Plaintiffs filed an action including claims for tortious discharge and bad faith discharge. Defendants contended that tort relief was available only to at-will employees and that plaintiffs could not state a bad faith discharge claim because defendants did not deny existence of a contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. On review, the court determined that plaintiffs could not recover on their tortious discharge claim because they did not plead or prove facts that established that they were discharged for a reason that contravened public policy. The court determined however that defendants did not set forth uncontroverted facts sufficient to negate as a matter of law that they discharged plaintiffs without probable cause and in bad faith. Accordingly the court issued a peremptory writ of mandate ordering the trial court to vacate its order dismissing the bad faith discharge cause of action.
Outcome
The court issued a peremptory writ of mandate ordering the trial court to vacate its order dismissing plaintiffs’ bad faith discharge cause of action because defendants did not show that plaintiffs were dismissed for good cause. The trial court was also ordered to vacate dismissal of defendants other than management corporation as the court held that defendants’ moving papers were insufficient to establish lack of agency.
Procedural Posture
Appellant homeowners challenged the judgment of dismissal entered by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) in favor of respondent insurance company. Appellants alleged that their complaint involving breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress set forth facts sufficient to state the causes of action.
Overview
A child was severely injured by appellant homeowners’ dog. Appellants were insured by respondent insurance company. The child’s parents brought suit against appellants. Appellants tendered the case to respondents and it was settled. Appellants then filed suit against respondent alleging bad faith, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, based on respondent’s representations to appellants that respondent did not represent appellants’ interests in the settlement of the case, only respondent’s. The trial court sustained respondent’s demurrer on all counts, without leave to amend, dismissing the action against respondent. Appellants contended that their complaint pleaded facts sufficient to state the causes of action set forth. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment. The complaint pleaded facts that could state a cause of action for breach of respondent’s duty to defend because of the parties’ conflict of interest. Appellants may have been entitled to reimbursement for their privately retained attorney. As to all other claims, the court found insufficient facts pleaded to state the causes of action.
Outcome
The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, finding error in its dismissal of the case. Appellant homeowners pleaded facts that could have stated a cause of action for a breach of the duty to defend. As to the other causes of action, appellants did not state sufficient facts against respondent insurance company. Appellants were to be given leave to amend to properly plead a cause of action for breach of the duty to defend.
